RE: Mitigating the effects of SLAAC renumbering events (draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum)

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Such router behavior is completely legal by ND RFC.
It does not matter that real routers implementations do not do this.
We should think that they do because the standard permits it.

And the RA in the chain may be lost.
It is better to attach information about completeness to the information itself.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont () si6networks com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Mitigating the effects of SLAAC renumbering events (draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum)

Hi,

On 31/8/22 09:43, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The router could split information between RAs (and send it at 
> different intervals). It may be difficult to guess what is stale and 
> what is just "not in this RA".

You ask the router, and the router responds.

If you want to consider the case where the router intentionally splits the options into multiple packets (which does 
not exist in practice), AND the link is super lossy, you just increase the number of retransmissions.

There's no guessing.

Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont () si6networks com
PGP Fingerprint: F242 FF0E A804 AF81 EB10 2F07 7CA1 321D 663B B494